Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Department of Management and Marketing, College of Business Administration, Hawaii Pacic University, 1132 Bishop Street, Suite 504-13, Honolulu, HI 96813, USA
HYVE AG, Schellingstrasse 45, Munich 80799, Germany
c
Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, Innsbruck University School of Management, Universittsstrasse 15, Innsbruck 6020, Austria
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 30 August 2010
Keywords:
Co-creation
Virtual worlds
Innovation
a b s t r a c t
Virtual worlds, such as the prominent Second Life (SL), offer unprecedented opportunities for companies
to tap the innovative potential of consumers and consumer communities. Despite the potential, the studied corporate open innovation initiatives fail to attract sustained engagement among co-creating participants. The underdeveloped state of these islands in terms of innovation tasks and the lack of knowledge
about how to attract innovative avatars raise key concerns about the nature of the experience avatars
have on corporate sites. In a quantitative study we examine the importance of the experience in encouraging active participation in the innovation tasks. When participants experience an inspiring, intrinsically
motivating, involving and fun co-creation experience, they participate more intensely. Prior research on
virtual new product development is extended to the virtual world context and insights of the virtual cocreation experience serve as guidelines for the conception of avatar-based innovation initiatives.
2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
161
multiple companies experiments with avatars as a source of innovation conrmed the companies inability to attract sustained engagement among avatars. After all, for virtual co-creation the
participation of engaged customers is crucial. Evaluating these innovation initiatives on the basis of participation rates, they are far from
successful (Kohler et al., 2009).
One possible explanation for this shortcoming is that the pathnding companies fail to create a compelling experience for users
of virtual worlds. In this paper, we use the term compelling experience to refer to an experience that is characterized by intrinsic
enjoyment, engagement, and interest. Academics have both highlighted the need for a compelling experience (Fller & Matzler,
2007; Nambisan & Nambisan, 2008; Prahalad & Ramaswamy,
2003) and acknowledged the positive relationship with a number
of characteristics. Fller (2006) stresses the interaction experience
as a key motivator to join co-creation projects, and von Hippel and
Katz (2002) regard it as critical for inspiring consumers to make
creative contributions. Others such as Hoch (2002), Hoch and
Deighton (1989) or Jiang and Benbasat (2007) highlight the importance of such an experience for consumers ability to become
familiar with the innovation, discover its qualities, and learn from
self-generated, non-ambiguous experiences. Despite these implicit
endorsements of the topics importance, little empirical research
has examined the co-creation experience (Nambisan & Nambisan,
2008). Recently, academics have called for a focus on the interaction experience (Nambisan & Baron, 2007). This article tackles this
research task and explores how consumers experience co-creation
activities within a virtual world. We are especially interested in the
consequences of a compelling virtual world innovation experience.
Toward this aim, the article is structured as follows: rst, we
briey review relevant literature on co-creation to discuss the nature of the interaction experience in virtual worlds. Then we introduce our research setting before presenting the results of our
study, which focused on assessing the consequences of a compelling co-creation experience. Finally, we discuss the studys theoretical as well as practical implications.
3. Designing the co-creation experience
In the most general and broadest use of the term, experience is
the mental state that occurs in any given individual, at any conscious moment (Poulsson & Kale, 2004). For the purpose of this research, experience is understood as the content of direct
observation or participation in an event, specically in a co-creation process (Takatalo, Nyman, & Laaksonen, 2008). Experience is
a complex interplay of situations, the individual and the system
over time (Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006) and designers of the virtual co-creation interaction do not control all aspects of the experience. While the setting, the atmospheric cues, can be provided
and largely controlled, the process or activities that occur within
this setting are mostly determined by the users and also the conception of the experience is created by the participants themselves
(Marsh, Wright, & Smith, 2001; Rijken, 1999). Understood this way,
users always have an experience whether good, bad or indifferent. To add a quality dimension to the co-creation experience, we
use the term compelling experience to refer to an experience that
is characterized by fun, intrinsic enjoyment and engagement. It is
the quality of experience consumers feel when involved in the creative activity which drives them to continue and keeps them motivated to perform at their best (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Enjoyable
and engaging experiences provide intrinsic value (Deci & Ryan,
1985), they offer a state of jouissance which people try to maintain and seek to repeat (Belk, Ger, & Askegaard, 2000).
For the web context, a number of studies address the user experience subject, but only a few recent studies focus on the co-creation context. Hoffman and Novak (1996b) proposed that creating a
162
163
Fig. 1. KTM ideation quest arrival and word-association (top), Philips ideation quest ideation platform and knowledge questions (middle), green ideation quest (to visit the
green ideation quest in Second Life: http://hyvebox.de/secondlife/).
164
Table 1
Components and their features in the ideation quest.
Component
a
Toolkits are internet based systems that assist customers to perform webbed customer innovation, they enable customers to both express their input and to nd creative
ideas for a desire or need.
b
A teleport is an instant change of your locations.
Table 2
Project details.
Project Name
Topic
Company involvement
Project start/end
Second Life Island
Avatars joining project
Time spent on average
Research conducted
Word-of-mouth and evangelism: Individuals tend to share positive and negative experiences with others if the topic is important
to them and they consider it also of interest to others (Gruen,
Osmonbekov, & Czaplewski, 2007; Porter & Donthu, 2008). Literature on electronic word-of-mouth has found that consumers engage in communicating their experiences with products or
services to others via the web for a number of reasons: their desire
for social interaction, economic incentives, their concern for other
consumers, and the potential to enhance their own self-worth are
the primary factors that lead to eWOM behavior (Hennig-Thurau,
Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004). Hence, word-of-mouth is a
vehicle for the individuals that helps to materialize these desires
or states. However, a positive and rewarding consumption experience is an important requirement. Consumers engage in positive
word of mouth if they associate enjoyable and rewarding experiences with it (Porter & Donthu, 2008). In our context, therefore,
it is more likely that consumers who have experienced a rewarding
and compelling co-creation process or episode will recommend it
to friends. Recent marketing literature, however, argues that
word-of-mouth does not comprehensively capture the missionary
intention of delighted, committed, and devoted customers. Pimentel and Reynolds (2004) have shown that truly devoted consumers
not only spread positive word of mouth but eventually engage in
165
an average of 3.68 (1 = basic, 5 = sophisticated). Twenty-ve avatars said that building is their preferred activity in SL, 28 concerned
with learning activities, and 27 prefer socializing. Attending live
performances (eight avatars), scripting (four avatars) and other
activities (22 avatars) account for the rest of the sample. Fifty-six
avatars have been in SL for one year or less, 44 have been in SL
for 2 years and 14 have been in SL for three years or even longer.
More female (63) than male (51) participants answered the
questionnaire.
6.1. Measures
Three indicators were adopted from Delle Fave and Massimini
(1988) and another two indicators from Fller (2008) to measure
compelling experience. We have chosen ve items to operationalize compelling experience covering the enjoying, emerging and
involving aspect of it. The intention to engage in future co-creation
activities was measured with two items similar to Bagozzi and
Warshaw (1990), Barki and Hartwick (1994), and Loken (1983).
Three items from the Evangelism scale as suggested by Matzler
et al. (2007) have been taken and adapted to the context of this
study. The three items to measure intention to live more sustainably are based on Ajzen (2006). All items were measured on a vepoint Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). All
incorporated measurement models are reective. Additionally active participation was operationalized with two measures, time
and words written. The time avatars spent on the project island
was observed with sensors, which generate timestamps per minute. The dialogue between avatars in brainstorming sessions was
recorded; words were counted with software and assigned to the
corresponding avatar name. Thus, we were able to measure actual
active participation instead of felt active participation (Ghani &
Desphande, 1994).
6.2. Data analysis and results
Because validated measures known from literature have been
either directly applied or only slightly adapted, conrmatory factor
analysis could be used to determine the psychometric properties of
the measures. First, reliability and validity of the measures in the
measurement model were tested to calculate the composite reliability of the constructs, the average variance extracted (Fornell
& Larcker, 1981), and the FornellLarcker-Ratio (1981) for discriminant validity. The results are displayed in Table 3.
Besides discriminant validity for compelling experience
(FLR = 1.1), the local t measures for the applied constructs
meet all required standards concerning average variance extracted
(>.5), composite reliability (>.6), and discriminant validity (FornellLarcker-Ratio <1) (Chin, 1998). Compelling experience highly
correlates with further interest. Therefore, discriminant validity is
not given between these constructs. However, as further interest
and future activities are conceptually different, both strongly depend on previous experiences, and the face validity of applied
items to measure compelling experience and further interest seem
to be high, we are condent that the high correlation is based on
the strong relationship between experiences and further interest
rather than on measurement bias.
Next, multiple t indices were examined to evaluate the overall
causal model. The v2 test is not signicant. Satisfactory ts are obtained as the GFI, CFI, NFI, TLI, and IFI are greater than or equal to
.9, and the RMSEA is less than .08 (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980; Chin &
Todd, 1995). The test statistics of our model provide the following
results: v2 = 86.30; df = 72, p = .120; v2/df = 1.199; NFI = .905; CFI =
.982; TLI = .978; IFI = .983; GFI = .901; AGFI = .855; RMSEA = .042.
Overall, the model indicates a good t to the data. Main effects:
The results given in Fig. 2 provide support for all hypotheses
166
Table 3
Psychometric properties of scales.
Construct
Item
Indicator
loadings
Mean
(SD)
.75
2.19
2.
3.
4.
5.
.84
.72
.73
.79
2.26
2.46
2.27
2.31
.90
.75
2.18
2.45
.66
.85
.67
3.12
2.6
2.78
.73
.96
1.83
2.06
Time spent
Minutes spent
90.19
Contribution
Words contributed
292.6
innovation platform. This time is not passively spent, but our ndings indicate that more content is added to the innovation project.
A compelling experience further leads to increased persistence and
interest in further co-creation activities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990),
which is considered an important prerequisite for creative input
and promising solutions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi, 2002; Dahl & Moreau, 2007).
In addition, someones engagement in a virtual co-creation project also leads to higher awareness and mobilizes ones desire to
act on the topic discussed. As pointed out in other studies (Hoffman & Novak, 1996b; Hoffman & Novak, 2007), a compelling experience positively affects participants attitudes towards the
considered topic. We demonstrated in our study that a compelling
experience has a positive effect on participants intention to live
more sustainably. Participants become more aware of the pollution
problem and intend to act more sustainably by wasting less energy
in our case. This could be seen as strong indicator that behavior
and action in virtual worlds also inuence real life behavior of participants and their attitudes.
7.2. Managerial implications
This study indicates several areas of action for managers. The rst
implication refers to embracing avatar-based innovation. Using the
latest technological advances can help leverage a rms innovation
process, both by harvesting the medium-related benets, and by
tapping into avatars creativity. Given the illustrated potential, managers need to acquaint themselves with the phenomenon of virtual
worlds and consider using avatars as equal partners in the new product development process. The second implication relates to the need
for open innovation practitioners to fully acknowledge the importance of the co-creation experience. If companies decide to use an
avatar-based innovation strategy, they must recognize that an invitation for avatars to actively participate in co-creation is not enough.
Present corporate activities in virtual worlds imply that the critical
challenge to use the emerging technology is not so much in devising
the technological infrastructure but in creating and maintaining a
rewarding experience for visitors. Companies need to go beyond
implementing the visual presence and instead seek to actively engage customers by recognizing their motivations and delivering
benet to them. Developers should endeavour to emphasize intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation. The inhabitants of
virtual worlds want to be engaged and involved and, therefore, provide a fertile ground for creative activities. The key to becoming successful in virtually collaborating with customers will depend on the
ability to aggregate participants, retain them and encourage them to
make contributions.
References
Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological
considerations. <http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf>.
Alam, I. (2002). An exploratory investigation of user involvement in new service
development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 250261.
Au, W. J. (2006). The mixed success of mixed reality. <http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/
2006/10/why_mixed_reali.html> (retrieved from 23 October 2006).
Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer
Research, 17(September), 127140.
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1994). Measuring user participation, user involvement, and
user attitude. MIS Quarterly, 18(1), 5982.
Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research(17),
127140.
Belk, R., Ger, G., & Askegaard, S. (2000). The missing streetcar named desire. In S.
Ratneshwar, D. G. Mick, & C. Huffman (Eds.), The why of consumption
(pp. 98119). London: Routledge.
Bentler, P., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Signicance tests and goodness of t in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin(99), 588606.
Biocca, F. (1992). Communication within virtual reality: Creating a space for
research. Journal of Communication, 42(Autumn), 522.
Bonsu, S. K., & Darmody, A. (2008). Co-creating second life. Journal of
Macromarketing, 28(4), 355368.
Castranova, E. (2005). Synthetic worlds: The business and culture of online games.
Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
Chen, J. (2007). Flow in games and everything else. Communications of the ACM,
50(4), 3134.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling. MIS
Quarterly(March), viixvi.
Chin, W. W., & Todd, P. A. (1995). On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of
structural equation modeling in MIS research: A note of caution. MIS
Quarterly(June), 237246.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1977). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: Psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention (1st ed.). New York: Harper Perennial. p. 456.
Dahan, E., & Hauser, J. (2002). The virtual customer. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 19(5), 332353.
Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2007). Thinking inside the box: Why consumers enjoy
constrained creative experiences. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 44(3),
357369.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:
The University of Rochester Press.
167
Deighton, J., & Grayson, K. (1995). Marketing and seduction: Building relationships
by managing social consensus. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(March),
660676.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (1988). Moderinization and the changing contexts of
ow in work and leisure. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.),
Optimal experience. Psychological studies of ow in consciousness (pp. 193213).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., & Evans, K. R. (2008). Inuence of customer participation
on creating and sharing of new product value. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science(36), 322336.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(February), 3950.
Franke, N., & Piller, F. (2004). Value creation by toolkits for user innovation and
design: The case of watch market. Journal of Product Innovation
Management(21), 401415.
Fller, J. (2006). Why consumers engage in virtual new product developments
initiated by producers. Advances in Consumer Research, 33(1), 639646.
Fller, J. (2008). Consumers experience during co-creation activities on the internet,
Whitepaper, MIT.
Fller, J., & Matzler, K. (2007). Virtual product experience and customer
participation A chance for customer-centred, really new products.
Technovation(27), 378387.
Ghani, J., & Desphande, S. (1994). Task characteristics and the experience of optimal
ow in humancomputer interaction. Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 381391.
Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2007). Customer-to-customer
exchange: Its MOA antecedents and its impact on value creation and loyalty.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(4), 537549.
Gruner, K., & Homburg, C. (2000). Does customer interaction enhance new product
success. Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 114.
Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience: A research agenda.
Behaviour and Information Technology, 25(2), 9197.
Hemp, P. (2006). Avatar-based marketing. Harvard Business Review, 84(6), 4857.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic
word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to
articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1),
3852.
Hoch, S. J. (2002). Product experience is seductive. Journal of Consumer Research,
29(3), 448454.
Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience.
Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 120.
Hoffman, D., & Novak, T. (1996a). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(3),
5068.
Hoffman, D., & Novak, T. (2007). Flow online: Lessons learned and future prospects.
Working Paper, University of California, pp. 128.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996b). Marketing in hypermedia computermediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(July),
5068.
Hsu, C.-L., & Lu, H.-P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM
with social inuences and ow experience. Information and Management, 41(7),
853868.
Ijsselsteijn, W., de Ridder, H., Freeman, J., & Avon, S. (2000). Presence: Concept,
determinants, and measurements. Proceedings of the SPIE, 520529.
Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). The effects of presentation formats and task
complexity on online consumers product understanding. MIS Quarterly, 31(3),
475500.
Kohler, T., Matzler, K., & Fller, J. (2009). Avatar-based innovation: Using virtual
worlds for real-world innovation. Technovation, 29(67), 395407.
Kozinets, R. (2002). The eld behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing
research in online communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 6172.
Loken, B. (1983). The theory of reasoned action: Examination of the sufciency
assumption for a television viewing behavior. Advances in Consumer Research,
10(1), 100105.
Marsh, T., Wright, P., & Smith, S. (2001). Evaluation for the design of experience in
virtual environments: Modeling breakdown of interaction and illusion.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4(2), 225238.
Mathwick, C., & Rigdon, E. (2004). Play, ow, and the online search experience.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 324332.
Matzler, K., Pichler, E., & Hemetsberger, A. (2007). Who is spreading the word? The
inuence of extraversion and openness on consumer passion and evangelism. In
American marketing associations winter educators conference 2007, San Diego,
CA.
Nambisan, S. (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new product
development: Toward a theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(3),
392413.
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments:
Implications for product support and customer relationship management.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(2), 4262.
Nambisan, S., & Nambisan, P. (2008). How to prot from a better Virtual Customer
Environment. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(3), 5361.
Novak, T., Hoffman, D., & Yung, Y.-F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in
online environments: A structural modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19(1),
2242.
Ogawa, S., & Piller, F. (2006). Reducing the risks of new product development. Sloan
Management Review, 47(2), 6571.
168
Ondrejka, C. (2007). Collapsing geography (second life, innovation, and the future of
national power). Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 2(3), 2754.
Piller, F., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: A novel method to
integrate users in new product development. R&D Management, 36(3), 307318.
Pimentel, R. W., & Reynolds, K. E. (2004). A model for consumer devotion: Affective
commitment with proactive sustaining behaviors. Academy of Marketing Science
Review(5), 145.
Pine, J. B., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre and every
business a stage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2008). Cultivating trust and harvesting value in virtual
communities. Management Science, 54(1), 113128.
Poulsson, S., & Kale, S. (2004). The experience economy and commercial
experiences. The Marketing Review, 4(3), 267277.
Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique
value with customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. p. 256.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2003). The new frontier of experience innovation.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 1218.
Pritchard, M. P., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1999). Analyzing the commitment
loyalty link in services contexts. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3),
333348.
Rijken, D. (1999). Information in space: Explorations in media and architecture.
Interactions, 6(3), 4457.
Rose, F. (2007). How Madison Avenue is wasting millions on a deserted second life.
Wired Magazine, 15(8).
Rozanski, H. D., Baum, A. G., & Wolfsen, B. T. (1999). Brand zealots: Realizing the full
value of emotional brand loyalty. Strategy and Business(17), 5162.
Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R. C., & Arroniz, I. (2006). The 12 different ways for
companies to innovate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 7581.
Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Experiencing products in the virtual world: The role of goal
and imagery in inuenceint attitudes versus purchase intentions. Journal of
Consumer Research, 30(2), 184198.
Schlosser, A. E. (2006). Learning through virtual product experience: The role of
imagery on true versus false memories. Journal of Consumer Research(33),
377383.
Schouten, J. W., McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2007). Transcendent customer
experience and brand community. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
35(3), 357368.
Steuer, J. (1992). Dening virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence.
Journal of Communication, 42(4), 7393.
Suh, K.-S., & Lee, Y. E. (2005). The effects of birtual reality on consumer learning: An
empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(4), 673697.
Takatalo, J., Nyman, G., & Laaksonen, L. (2008). Components of human experience in
virtual environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 115.
von Hippel, E. (2001). PERSPECTIVE: User toolkits for innovation. The Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 18(4), 247257.
von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits.
Management Science, 48(7), 821833.